Too many people = Too many problems

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 15 Dec 2008, 04:47

The Reporter - 14/12/08

Panic over a turbulent world economy has overshadowed strategic issues that, in the long run, will determine quality of life on Earth. Few people are willing to concentrate right now on such transcendent matters as unsustainable population growth, rapid global warming, dwindling water supplies, loss of biodiversity.

Article continues ...

Miss Madam · Post by **Miss Madam** » 15 Dec 2008, 15:53

Aye, it's Ted Hughes point again isn't it.... 'They f*ck you up your Mum and Dad, they don't mean to but they do, they give you all the problems that they had and add some more just for you.... Man hands on misery to man, it deepens like a coastal shelf, get out as quickly as you can, and don't have any kids yourself!'

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 15 Dec 2008, 15:58

Too many people = Too many problems

And not enough love to go round.

This is a land of confusion.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 15 Dec 2008, 16:04

Genocide, its ok if its for enviromental reasons.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 15 Dec 2008, 16:12

Genesis actually.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 15 Dec 2008, 16:17

DominicJ wrote:Genocide, its ok if its for enviromental reasons.

I'm not sure many people around here would agree with that.

In this country it seems we need population growth to increase the number of working people, to be able to pay for the increasing number of retired people. Isn't that one of the arguments for immigration? Unfortunately it's another growth, credit crunch, peak oil type time bomb waiting to happen.

But killing the surplus people isn't the answer, and it's definitely against the 2nd Permaculture Ethic, so I wouldn't like to see it. The solution has got to be breeding less new humans to replace the ones that die. That's going to need some big changes in people's expectations, but that's about to happen anyway now.

As I said the other day, I've done my bit by not having any kids. I adopted a homeless dog instead

Welsh Wizard · Post by **Welsh Wizard** » 15 Dec 2008, 16:17

Why bring genocide into it? Surely allowing access to contraception to everyone on the planet and encouraging small families would be a sensible measure short of war and mass murder. Oh wait, that would be against so many religions..... best get ready to begin the slaughter... oh wait, genocide already began in Rwanda and Darfur? All our problems are solved....

/end sarcasm.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 15 Dec 2008, 16:30

I'm not sure many people around here would agree with that.

Bloody hell I hope they dont.
It was an outlandish comment meant to make people realise that hoping for a flu pandemic to cure our "overpopulation" "problem" is, well, tantamount to genocide.

In this country it seems we need population growth to increase the number of working people, to be able to pay for the increasing number of retired people. Isn't that one of the arguments for immigration?

Yes, generaly I'm against immigration, something to enourage the productive to procreate would be a better solution in my view.

Why bring genocide into it?

It was an outlandish comment meant to make people realise that hoping for a flu pandemic to cure our "overpopulation" "problem" is, well, tantamount to genocide.

Surely allowing access to contraception to everyone on the planet and encouraging small families would be a sensible measure short of war and mass murder.

Could work, but, like disarmament, the nation that breaks the rules wins

If Europe implemented a 1 child per family rule, and the UK implemented a 10 children per family rule, in a generation, we'd be two thirds of the entire population of Europe.

Welsh Wizard · Post by **Welsh Wizard** » 15 Dec 2008, 16:40

The population problem is the key problem we have to face; the easy solutions are not ethical, and the ethical solutions are not easy. Not a lot seems to be being said or done about it at present which tends to imply that the ultimate solution will be one of the miserable unpleasant ones. Starvation, war and disease are going to be growth areas in the 21st century. I was hoping for Buck Rogers.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 15 Dec 2008, 21:09

Albert Bartlett wrote:In the left hand column, I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing, make the problem worse. Just look at the list. Everything in the list is as sacred as motherhood. There's immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation. These are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me, if it’s my death they’re lowering. But then I’ve got to realise that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse.

There’s peace, law and order; scientific agriculture has lowered the death rate due to famine—that just makes the population problem worse. It’s widely reported that the 55 mph speed limit saved thousands of lives—that just makes the population problem worse. Clean air makes it worse.

Now, in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well, there’s abstention, contraception, abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents. Now, smoking clearly raises the death rate; well, that helps solve the problem.

Remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter; we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms and say it’s obvious nature is going to choose from the right hand list and we don't have to do anything—except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right hand list. Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us, and that option is to choose first from the right hand list. We gotta find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? (audience laughter)

We now have the capability of incredible war; would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents? Well, here we can see the human dilemma—everything we regard as good makes the population problem worse, everything we regard as bad helps solve the problem. There is a dilemma if ever there was one.

The one remaining question is education: does it go in the left hand column or the right hand column? I’d have to say thus far in this country it’s been in the left hand column—it's done very little to reduce ignorance of the problem.

MisterE · Post by **MisterE** » 15 Dec 2008, 21:45

I'll go for small families, no kids, state sterilisation, kill every child after the first born, kill all people over the age of 65, if your ill or a burden on the country then kill them, handicapped kill those, metally ill kill those etc etc etc - but providing it applies to all those in power first and those that advocate such idiotic ideas - suddenly it wont be so popular.

Until we can get into space and populate there, I'll stick with the old tried and trusted method that has worked since the dawn of man. Strive for a better life, then live a great reasonably free life, build an empire, go to war with other empires, start process over again.

PS Andy very funny, had me singing the words

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 16 Dec 2008, 07:36

I don't think nature worries about genocide only us humans. Lets face it life has a habit of taking advantage of the most abundant and dense power source and some small microbe will discover us pretty soon.

I can see it now in 30 years on the HIV-EBOLA SPANISH-FLU Microbe forum

WARNING PEAK HUMANS IN 3 WEEKS

History tells us we don't worry about it either with cannibalism seen in almost all cultures that have collapsed due to lack of food. We are no different just blinkered by the availability of excess energy

stumuz · Post by **stumuz** » 16 Dec 2008, 08:04

MisterE wrote:I'll go for small families, no kids, state sterilisation, kill every child after the first born, kill all people over the age of 65, if your ill or a burden on the country then kill them, handicapped kill those, metally ill kill those etc etc etc - but providing it applies to all those in power first and those that advocate such idiotic ideas - suddenly it wont be so popular.

Until we can get into space and populate there, I'll stick with the old tried and trusted method that has worked since the dawn of man. Strive for a better life, then live a great reasonably free life, build an empire, go to war with other empires, start process over again.

Great post misterE.

I could not imagine living in a world were I was alone; the family is the reason I get out of bed in the morning. They are the reason I’m pretty much PO prepared. Reading your posts in the past it seems you have pragmatically just got on with your PO preps. Question is, is it a Welsh thing or a family thing!

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 16 Dec 2008, 08:48

I can see it now in 30 years on the HIV-EBOLA SPANISH-FLU Microbe forum

If HIV spread like the flu, we wouldnt stand a chance.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 16 Dec 2008, 12:37

If HIV spread like the flu, we wouldnt stand a chance.

I was reading about how HIV works & evolves etc the other day.

It's a NASTY piece of work.

To be frank, having read about it and thinking about the risks associated with a mutation into a REALLY unpleasant form, I would now support manadatory testing for HIV and isolation of all sufferers.

Drastic - but maybe the wisest option.